The Journal of Peace, Development and Communication (JPDC) is dedicated to maintaining the highest academic standards. We ensure a fair, transparent, and ethical peer review process to evaluate submitted manuscripts based on their scholarly merit, originality, and contribution to the field of social sciences. This rigorous process is essential for upholding the quality and credibility of our journal.
Types of Peer Review
JPDC maintains impartiality and objectivity through a double-blind peer review process. Under this system:
Authors: remain anonymous to the reviewers.
This means that the authors of a manuscript do not know the names or affiliations of the individuals who are reviewing their work. This is a common practice in academic publishing, known as double-blind peer review. It helps to ensure objectivity and fairness in the review process, as reviewers are less likely to be influenced by personal biases or relationships.
Reviewers: remain anonymous to the authors.
This means that the reviewers of a manuscript do not know the names or affiliations of the authors. This is a common practice in academic publishing, known as double-blind peer review. It helps to ensure objectivity and fairness in the review process, as reviewers are less likely to be influenced by personal biases or relationships.
Peer Review Process
- Initial Submission and Editorial Screening:
All manuscripts are submitted electronically through the JPDC submission system. After submission, the editorial office conducts an initial review to assess if the manuscript aligns with the journal’s scope, adheres to submission guidelines, and meets our quality standards. Manuscripts that do not meet these basic requirements may be rejected without undergoing external review.
- Reviewer Assignment:
Manuscripts that pass the initial screening are sent to at least two expert reviewers with relevant subject matter expertise. These reviewers are selected based on their qualifications, research background, and independence from the authors to prevent any conflicts of interest.
- Double-Blind Review:
Reviewers receive the manuscript in an anonymized format, without any identifying author details. They evaluate the manuscript’s quality based on its originality, methodology, clarity, relevance, and contribution to the field.
- Reviewer Feedback:
Reviewers provide detailed comments and recommendations, including suggestions for improvements, corrections, or clarifications. Based on their evaluation, reviewers recommend one of the following actions:
- Accept: The manuscript is accepted without revisions.
- Accept with minor revisions: The manuscript is accepted, but minor revisions are required.
- Revise and resubmit: Major revisions are required before the manuscript can be considered for acceptance.
- Reject: The manuscript is rejected.
- Editorial Decision:
The editorial team makes the final decision based on the reviewers’ feedback. If revisions are required, the manuscript is returned to the author(s) for revisions. The revised manuscript may be sent back to reviewers for re-evaluation or accepted directly by the editorial team. The final decision, along with any necessary feedback from the reviewers, is communicated to the authors.
Timeframe of the Review
The review process is generally completed within 4 to 6 weeks after submission. However, the timeline may vary depending on the complexity of the manuscript and the availability of suitable reviewers.
Reviewer Selection and Ethics
- Selection of Reviewers: Reviewers are chosen based on their expertise in the relevant field and their academic qualifications. JPDC maintains a diverse pool of reviewers from various social science disciplines to ensure a comprehensive and informed evaluation process.
- Confidentiality: All manuscripts under review are treated as confidential. Reviewers are prohibited from sharing or discussing the content with others unless explicitly authorized by the editorial team.
- Ethical Review Conduct: Reviewers are expected to conduct their reviews impartially, free from bias or conflicts of interest. Any personal, financial, or professional conflicts that could potentially influence the review must be disclosed to the editors.
Appeals Process
Authors who believe their manuscript was unfairly rejected may submit an appeal with a detailed explanation of their case. The editorial team will carefully review the appeal, and in certain cases, an independent reviewer may be consulted. However, the final decision on the appeal lies with the editor-in-chief and is binding.
Ethical Standards
JPDC strictly adheres to the ethical standards set forth by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). Reviewers are expected to uphold the principles of fairness, confidentiality, transparency, and integrity in their review work. Authors are also required to respect the peer review process by following the guidelines provided and responding promptly to reviewer comments.
Reviewer Acknowledgment
To acknowledge the valuable contributions of peer reviewers, JPDC publicly recognizes their efforts in an annual acknowledgment published on the journal’s website. Reviewers may also receive certificates of recognition upon request.
Conclusion
The peer review process is a crucial aspect of the publication process at JPDC, ensuring the quality, credibility, and relevance of the research we publish. By adhering to a structured, ethical, and transparent peer review policy, JPDC maintains its commitment to academic excellence and the integrity of the scholarly record.
JPDC follows the double blind review in which the reviewers don’t know the identity of authors. This type of review is most commonly used in the field of social sciences and humanities.
One article/book review is reviewed by one national reviewer and while one reviewers is from developed country which maintain the quality of content and remove biases from the review.